FIR, his name had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC and, therefore, he could not be promoted during subsistence of the FIR. Since, till date, no chargesheet has been filed against him, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner begins by submitting that the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 vide which the petitioner‟s name has been directed to be kept in a sealed cover by the DPC solely on account of an FIR registered against him by the CBI is unsustainable in law. The respondents, he submits, have failed to appreciate that the DPC could have kept the petitioner‟s name in a sealed cover only if his case fell under any of the three situations envisaged under the DoPT‟s OMs dated 14.09.1992 and 02.11.2012. The petitioner, he contends, falls under none of the three clauses of these OMs as on the date of the DPC, he was neither under suspension nor were any disciplinary proceedings pending against him nor was he facing any criminal prosecution on the date of the DPC. By placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman : (1991) 4 SCC 109 & Union of India vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar : (2013) 4 SCC 161, he submits that since till date no chargesheet has been filed by the CBI or nor any charges have been framed against the petitioner by the Court, it could not be said that he was facing any criminal prosecution when the DPC met. The DoPT‟s O.M. dated 14.09.1992 and 02.11.2012, clearly lay down that prosecution for a criminal charge can be stated to be pending only on the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the complaint or report filed by the police. In the present case, since admittedly,
